High Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Against Estate Officer, Emphasizes 'Sanction Before Prosecution' for Public Servants

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a significant ruling, has quashed a criminal complaint against Rajinder Chauhan, the Estate Officer, involved in a case of alleged forced eviction and theft from a shop in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, presiding over the case, underscored the necessity of adhering to legal protocols before initiating proceedings against a public servant. The judgment highlighted, “Before issuance of process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. was required and in the absence of such sanction, criminal complaint as well as the summoning order are liable to be quashed on this ground alone.”

The petitioner, Rajinder Chauhan, had approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the criminal complaint dated January 25, 2012, filed under various sections of the IPC. The complaint stemmed from an incident involving the alleged forcible eviction of a shop in PGIMS, Rohtak, and the theft of goods worth approximately Rs. 80/90 lacs.

In his petition, Chauhan contended that the complaint was motivated by malice and personal vendetta. The Court, in its judgment, noted that the petitioner, in his capacity as the Estate Officer, acted under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor and in compliance with legal directives.

The Court drew parallels with similar cases involving co-accused, whose complaints had been previously quashed, asserting that the petitioner’s case was in line with these precedents. Citing the

necessity of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. for prosecuting public servants, the judgment referenced the landmark case of 'State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal AIR 1992 SC 604', emphasizing that the law protects public servants from malicious prosecutions.

The judgment further observed, “The prosecution cannot be launched in a casual manner,” reflecting on the need for a careful and justified approach in initiating legal actions against public servants. This observation resonates with the principles laid down in the case of 'Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and others', where the Supreme Court stressed the gravity of sanction in prosecuting government officials.

The decision to quash the proceedings against Rajinder Chauhan has been welcomed by legal experts, who view it as a reinforcement of the legal protections afforded to public servants performing their duties in good faith. The case sets a precedent for future instances where the question of sanction is a critical factor in proceedings against public servants.

Mr. Dalip Kumar Tuteja, the advocate representing the petitioner, expressed satisfaction with the judgment, noting that it upholds the principles of justice and the legal safeguards for public servants against unwarranted prosecutions.

RAJINDER CHAUHAN VS TRILOK CHAND